₦airaland Forum

ooman: Anyone who wants to commit suicide should go right on. I have no time to babysitter any eediit whose life is a waste from the beginning.

Eya, your intentions were honest. You thought someone was suicidal, someone who went out of his way to state he wasn't so in anyway whatsoever btw, then just posted the first thing that came to your mind? It's a little like this, even if not exactly.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razor

wiki: Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.

Your case was not malice, but you get the point (I hope). Anyways, that's no excuse to say something so spectacularly vacuous as most other people wouldn't do the same in similar situations. Trying to sound smart then failing risibly. Btw, I had to mention muslims before you realized the scope of your folly. You no try for them...at all.

Perhaps you should stop and think before you post? It helps. For instance, if I wasn't replying so quickly I would have noted that your eating other life to sustain yourself sort of illustrates entropy. Sort of. You eat the your meal, convert the poor dead whatever to energy, you've now switched from one type of order (dead meat) to another (energy/matter that you would use). You cannot convert that energy back into the meat. You could try, but not without loosing/expending resources which are lost irretrievably. So even if you were a supa-dupa scientist, whatever process used would involve you expending energy/matter irretrievably one way or the other. So the end result? Overall entropy always increases, or overall disorder if you like. Eventually everything will become essentially useless. This isn't the best way to put it probably, but it will have to do until I have more time to come edit it.

And don't get so depressed, you now sound suicidal. Do you need a hug? Even if it all seems pointless and what not remember that you could always set goals for yourself. You don't need god to do that for you, after all, he used the same tools you possessed to set out goals for you; consciousness. Don't you have people you want to help smile? Don't you have religionists you want to troll? Things you want to do, eg better humanity's lot? Think about that before you jump off a cliff.

(random: I wonder if I have to stress assuming in this case as well...)

ooman: How does death facilitate life?

Wtf do you eat?

You alone die, that's how many other plants and animals get to stay alive by not ending up in your belly?

New ideas brought about by new generations, the cycle of life. These new population evolve new ways to be productive for instance, better productivity means better longer lives. Look around you, look at history.

Even manure in a sense ffs.

Etc etc

Now I'm really off to work. Which kind procrastination be dis sef....

ooman: Why are all you atheist so stu.pod today.

ENTROPY NEVER MEANS ORDER BUT RATE OF DISORDER.

YOUR FOOLIS.HNESS IS ALARMING.

Perhaps you require crayons and some paper to try and figure this.

I said entropy always increases, that means disorder always increases overall, irretrievably even. However, you can fashion out another type of order, my good eediot, else how do even basic things like matter form? Don't be silly. Regardless of whatever new order is achieved, another type of order is hampered beyond repair. Basically, $hit must wear out no matter what one tries one way or the other. Heat being the most popular example.

You may need to have your atheist license revoked, your reasoning does not seem capable of reaching our mastah levels of enlightenment. Why your lack of belief? Can you explain it good ser?

ooman: You must be a blind eediot. Did you not read this : Am only suggesting that death means increase in entropy of the environment and for that reason, he should not kill himself. Any other reason why he wanted to die is his
problems. I do notnot care- Etc.

And you missed the parts of my post where I show that is such a stoopid thing to consider, probably even wrong considering how death facilitates life, even muslims would be ashamed to state it?

ooman: I posted numerous links about entropy and the second law of thermodynamics.

I think your question is absolute nonsense.

If you have problems with my view, point it out. Simple.

I do, it's terribly foo.lish. For instance, you don't even know what entropy is, that statement is very clearly wrong. Very. Completely. And I'm not going to read those long posts. Sorry, summarize them. But here are some basics, just because you gain one sort of 'order' that does not mean you don't lose another type of 'order', you always do. That is entropy. You gain some, you usually do else we wouldn't be here, no? But overall you always lose some, irretrievably. Do you get it now? Only excuse is you're confusing things and thinking only about the total amount of energy in a closed system, which remains constant. Entropy entails more than just that. Entropy always increases, one way or the other.

Alfamann: I've read this a few times and couldn't quite understand what you are driving at.

First of all, I do not beieve in your god, gods, Jizz-Us, Pedo-Mo, Ashawo Mary or whatever sick dead middle eastern some people want to worship. And I understand, neither do you nor Logicboy. So my post was a surprise that you would suggest that chihuahas' faults are god's intelligence desing failure when you know fully well that such suggestion is nonsense.
And they are no breeders' design neither as these dogs have been existing and surviving for centuries. Man didn't bring chihuahas into existence. Nature/evolution did.

My main point (again, which wasn't even mentioned in the op but implied to in the other posts) is that breeders choose to breed chihuahuas despite the fact that there are better options, usually for silly selfish reasons (imo). Same way god chooses to have such a flawed world, evolution only being a part of it, natural evil as well being a very major part of it, and all the other good c.ock ups included, why? Shouldn't god(s) (omnipotent in particular) be able to produce a universe with less suffering? Just as breeders should be able to produce dogs with less problems. Or is he/it/whatever simply being selfish as well? What's the excuse? (Kay17 has a somewhat similar active thread elsewhere, btw, https://www.nairaland.com/1086592/ultimate-purpose-gods-nature)

As for stating god existed, where? Read the post you replied to, I'm clearly referring to a hypothetical situation. Even in this post I mention god, but where do I state there's an actual god? Being my views are fairly well known I need to state the implied 'if' whenever I make a statement? Especially if I use the word 'assuming', indicating speculation, when discussing?

Are you saying men did not domesticate wolves? What do you think dogs are? Are you saying breeders don't .....breed? Dogs are a result of artificial selection, not natural. And main point anyways is the breeders have the power to do something about it but they choose not to for frivolous reasons

ooman: That is because your post is total nonsense and I never suggested any of it.

You never suggested any of that? That does not make the post nonsense, but you'd need a working brain to figure that out.

So, if you don't suggest any of that, why is entropy relevant to this discussion? Those questions show some of why it's fantastically foo.lish to bring up entropy as a valid reason to not commit suicide (especially for existential reasons), no? If you don't think so, pls show how.

ooman: Do you know that the entropy of a closed system cannot also increase.

Who says that living systems are closed systems, do you know what a closed system means? Living systems are never closed system hence their death releases their conserved energy.

Do you really know what entropy is?

ooman: Am only suggesting that death means increase in entropy of the environment and for that reason, he should not kill himself. Any other reason why he wanted to die is his problems. I do not care about him and his death means nothing to me or anymore but to the cosmos.

So I suggested he stay alive for the cosmos.

This ignores more or else my whole post.

ooman: the only thing i id was to present the 2nd law of thermodynamics as confirmed here: https://www.nairaland.com/1230274/striktlymi-davidylan-right-wrong

So, why should one consider this when contemplating suicide?

Are you suggesting entropy can be stopped?

Are you suggesting that considering the size of the cosmos the rate of increase of entropy, or even just the amount of energy, this whole planet will use through its lifetime would have any sort of significant effect on eventual 'heat death' of this universe?

Are you suggesting that by dying another being would not be produced that will conserve whatever it is that you want to conserve? In fact it's possible that by dying one slows down the rate of entropy according to you as death of one being can facilitate the life of many others. Indeed, it does so a lot.

From other angles, are you suggesting a dead person can worry about entropy? A person facing an existential crises, asking what's the point of it all, should be concerned about what happens to this universe?

Are you suggesting I should really be doing something more productive with my time, something than this? Eg, watching paint dry? Ok, I get it

Etc etc

Edits

I have a friend who slept 'behind counter' at a police station for allegedly stealing a pipi. Remarkably (or not), despite falling prey to the effects of this sort of inanity this very same (university trained) guy would later argue with me about the thief that turned to a goat claim that was on nta.

Even by atheist standards @ooman you're rather eccentric. Not even sure if troll. Incidentally, that's the mark of a truly great troll.

CarCam: [img]http://rlv.zcache.co.uk/isapi/designall.dll?rlvnet=1&realview=113390926697750663&design=1cf3f3de-3a60-4bab-ab55-5c912d546866&style=basic_tshirt&size=a_l&color=white&pending=false&pdt=zazzle_shirt&max_dim=512[/img]

Alfamann, get him a tshirt like this, he deserves one.

Einstein could have said that and meant it, but it would not have meant what you think it means.

Omexonomy: Why are you people quick to attack God? Are you sure the almighty God is not calling you to serve him? Why are You quick to blame God for the stupidity of ur fellow man? Finnally, since you claim God do not exist why dont you hold ur peace?

Do you have an answer to the question in the op or not? It is not by force to reply.

Alfamann: You two self.

You are eager to blame a god you claim do not exist, for evolutionary inadequacies.

This is what evolution is my people. It is not a design. It is not perfect. It just is.

LM666Mann, do you think I don't know what evolution is or has troll season arrived?

wiegraf: ^^

And even more. Eg, god makes myriad faulty beings when there probably are MUCH better options around. Assuming he's omniscient the situation becomes even more deplorable.

I didn't even mention god or evolution in the op. In my reply to @lb note the bolded word. One would think I was making assumptions about a possible god(s) and its attributes, no? Like when people discuss hypothetical situations. For instance,

LM666Mann; santa (or is it satan) exists, he gives all good kids presents on xtmas
rationalMann; that's ridiculous. How would he even know which kids have been 'good'?

Not the implied 'if', 'assuming', etc. RationalMann never said satan existed, just like I never stated that god existed. If one can't pick that up then, again, s/he probably shouldn't be responding.

So, if said god existed, why should I not ask why evolution (and much of creation) is such a faulty and haphazard system? Do give a reason, especially for an omnixx.xx being. It is after all his design, no? Just as chihuahuas are the breeders design, the one they chose despite the availability of clearly healthier breeds. And, again, this would apply to many things eg 'evil' stuff.

^^

And even more. Eg, god makes myriad faulty beings when there probably are MUCH better options around. Assuming he's omniscient the situation becomes even more deplorable. Etc etc

Of course, one awaits 'mysterious' reasons, etc etc....

There are healthier dog breeds, ones that won't suffer as much, why breed these?

Now, now, bear with this till the end, there's a point there. Truly. Besides, I understand not too much happening these days.

I was thinking about rabid chiwawas, etc, then I remembered something. Some dog breeds are really unhealthy, take medical problems associated with chihuahuas for instance

wiki: This breed requires expert veterinary attention in areas such as birthing and dental care. Chihuahuas are also prone to some genetic anomalies, often neurological ones, such as epilepsy and seizure disorders.

Chihuahuas, and other toy breeds, are prone to the sometimes painful disease hydrocephalus. It is often diagnosed by the puppy having an abnormally large head, or hydrocephalus, during the first several months of life, but other symptoms are more noticeable since "a large head" is such a broad description. Chihuahua puppies exhibiting hydrocephalus usually have patchy skull plates rather than a solid bone and typically are lethargic and do not grow at the same pace as their siblings. A true case of hydrocephalus can be diagnosed by a veterinarian, though the prognosis is grim.

Chihuahuas have moleras, or a soft spot in their skulls, and they are the only breed of dog to be born with an incomplete skull. The molera fills in with age, but great care needs to be taken during the first six months until the skull is fully formed. Some moleras do not close completely and will require extra care to prevent injury. Many veterinarians are not familiar with Chihuahuas as a breed and mistakenly confuse a molera with hydrocephalus.[16]

Chihuahuas can also be at risk for hypoglycemia, or low blood sugar, which is especially dangerous for puppies. Left unattended, hypoglycemia can lead to coma and death but can be avoided with frequent feedings, such as every three hours for very small or young puppies. Chihuahua owners should have a simple sugar supplement on hand to use in emergencies, such as, Nutri-Cal, Karo syrup or honey. These supplements can be rubbed on the gums and roof of the mouth to rapidly raise the blood sugar level. Signs of hypoglycemia include lethargy, sleepiness, low energy, uncoordinated walking, unfocused eyes and spasms of the neck muscles or head pulling back or to the side.

Chihuahuas are prone to eye infections or eye injury due to their large, round, protruding eyes and their relatively low ground clearance. Care should be taken to prevent visitors or children from poking the eyes. The eyes also water frequently to remove dust or allergens that may get into the eye. Daily wiping will keep the eyes clean and prevent tear staining.

Collapsed trachea is a health concern that is characteristic of the chihuahua breed.[17]

Chihuahuas have a tendency to tremble but it is not a health issue. Instead, it occurs mainly when the dog is stressed, excited or cold. Cold can also present a problem for these small animals. They often enjoy wearing coats or sweaters when outside and enjoy digging and snuggling in blankets when sleeping.

Although figures often vary, as with any breed, the average lifespan range for a healthy Chihuahua is between 10 and 18 years.

Chihuahuas are sometimes picky eaters and care must be taken to provide them with adequate nutrition. Sometimes wet or fresh food can have the most appealing smell to these constant eaters. Chihuahuas are prone to hypoglycemia and could be at a critical state if allowed to go too long without a meal. At the same time, care must be exercised not to overfeed them.

Chihuahuas have a notorious problem with dental issues. Dental care is a must for these little creatures. Human food should be avoided. Due to their small size, even tiny high fat or sugary treats can result in an overweight Chihuahua. Overweight Chihuahuas are susceptible to increased rates of joint injuries, tracheal collapse, chronic bronchitis, and shortened life span.

Chihuahuas are also known for a genetic condition called 'luxating Patella,' a genetic condition that can occur in all dogs. In some dogs, the ridges forming the patellar groove are not shaped correctly and a shallow groove is created. In a dog with shallow grooves, the patella will luxate or slip out of place, sideways. It causes the leg to 'lock up' and will force the chihuahua to hold its foot off the ground. When the patella luxates from the groove of the femur, it usually cannot return to its normal position until the quadriceps muscle relaxes and increases in length, explaining why the affected dog may be forced to hold his leg up for a few minutes or so after the initial displacement. While the muscles are contracted and the patella is luxated from its correct position, the joint is held in the flexed or bent position. The knee cap sliding across the femur can cause some pain due to the bony ridges of the femur. Once out of position, the animal feels no discomfort and continues with activity.

Chihuahuas are also prone to some heart-related disorders, such as heart murmurs and pulmonic stenosis, a condition in which the blood outflow from the heart's right ventricle is obstructed at the pulmonic valve.[18]

Chihuahuas, along with other miniature dogs such as Chinese Cresteds, are prone to physical deformities, especially in old age; several chihuahuas and cross-bred chihuahua/Chinese crested mixes have rated highly in the World's Ugliest Dog Contest, including a purebred chihuahua named Princess Abby (winner of the 2010 contest) and a crossbreed named Yoda (the 2011 winner).

That's a lot. To compound on this they're apparently usually in a foul mood. Understandable considering the medical issues they have to deal with. So, my question is, should they be banned? Aren't breeders who breed dogs like these being incredibly selfish? There are other breeds one could have that come with a lot less issues than these yet they knowingly choose to breed one which would live in constant pain, etc, just to satisfy whatever selfish motive.

Bonus; Not really related but consider this woman

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nadya_Suleman

wiki: Public reaction turned negative when it was discovered that Suleman already had six other young children and was unemployed and on public assistance programs. Suleman conceived the octuplets and her six older children via in vitro fertilization (IVF).[5] Although she initially denied ever having used public assistance,[6] she confirmed in April 2012 on NBC's Today show that she was indeed on public assistance.

PS: if you cannot see how this relates to religion then perhaps you need not reply.

I might not be able to reply immediately

And, look at this ugly b***ard below, not sure why anyone wants to breed that. Fittingly looks like a zombie. When you think of a rabid zombie religionist....

striktlymi: Good evening wiegraf,

I guess I have no option now but to begin the euthanasia discuss...I have been avoiding this for a while

I know that feel...

I shouldn't even be here atm...

Asides from that, yup, hard to find a victim here.

musKeeto: Chai [s]no blow my cover, thread never even start[/s]

Where's ooman when you need him?

Him nearly jam BUZUGEE yesterday, it could have been interesting...

musKeeto: Lol, I didn't make this thread for you ...

Done trolling on frontpage... And I've got the week off..

So, you're trolling for fresh blood?

When bored one should troll. I'll respond to this later...

okeyxyz: For once, I'm actually enjoying your post. You are actually making a logical, adult and objective argument. It's a breath of fresh air to read you saying the above while resisting the natural urge to jump on the bandwagon of other so called "logic bearers" who would disregard logic and science just because it favours the position a religious cleric/person.

It is an overwhelming truth and fact that pedophilia is a mental disorder, but some "sad" individuals would simply turn a blind eye to this point because they want to win politically. How do these people manage to miss the fact that the subject is PEDOPHILIA, not CHILD S.EXUAL ABUSE Pedophilia is a condition, not an act and cannot be a crime. The guys who are arguing otherwise clearly demonstrate that either they are unable to grasp logic or they just simply refuse to apply logic, and why?? They are either too bitter/angry or just plainly vindictive.

Did davidylan bite you? What's with these rabid, blind, senseless accusations?

me: He seems to be indicating that other than psychological help they should get a (virtually) free pass as well.

In case you're having comprehension problems I don't state in anyway that there is no need for psychological help. I even go as far as to state that I don't believe free will exists earlier, think about the implications of that even if it may be overkill for now. In fact, I allude to psychological help as being a positive thing, at least to them. Hence I lump it together with their getting a 'get out of jail for free card' as nice things they'd get from the state for being ra.pists, something I'm sure most of them would appreciate. Now, I'm very clearly against the 'get out of jail' pass but at the very most indifferent, not hostile, to the psychological evaluations from this statement. At least when it comes from the mouth of such a hypocrite. Hence

me: PS; I, personally, might have been more forgiving if this was uttered by someone with honest intentions, not someone so blatantly self-serving; trying to make his organization look good. Tomorrow morning he'll be back demanding homo.sexuals be denied rights, etc etc.

How you conclude otherwise is beyond me. The others seem to be saying the same thing as well.

The way they want to sneak a 'get out of jail card' into that package (the psychological treatment) is beyond me, or do all people abused as children become ra.pists? Perhaps only the priests? Whatever happened to personal responsibility? And the moral relativity... Tomorrow they claim morality is objective. I suppose priests being infallible is a constant objective moral, no? Btw, pedophilia is not the only case where psychological help should be necessary, of course our father would focus on just this, wonder why?

Mostly better said here though

Nkeon: Like ooman, I also agree with the part about paedophilia being a psychological disorder. I think it is something like 1 in 5 people abused as children go on to abuse others so clearly there is a connection. Preventing such situations in the future would involve ensuring that children aren't screwed up in their youth in the first place.

That being said, abusing a child is still a criminal action. End of. The hidden truth is that intimate attraction to children is more common that people think. Not every person that has an attraction to kids goes on to abuse them though. That is a different level action. True the perpetrators have probably had a traumatic background but if we go by that then there is no such thing as crime because most criminals have a troubled past.

In any case he is saying this in a pathetic attempt to relinquish the Catholic Church from their failure to take action on numerous occasions when children were being abused right under their nose. Regardless of it being a mental disorder the church should have still ensured that the children are out of harms way. They are aware that there are many individuals in their church disturbed and yet they have done nothing to get help for the molesters or the children.

striktlymi: In a nutshell, I believe we agree that those narcs that are not victimless should be banned while those that are as 'mild' as alcohol should be allowed but with some degree of regulation in order to safeguard the interest of others.

Are we in agreement?

Yup.

Good putting 'mild' in quotes, but it will have to do as the word to use. The devil is in the details, is that the saying? But yes, we are agreed as far as this statement in particular is concerned.

Solozzo: The cardinal is expressing the fact that some priests involved in paedophillia were psychologically disturbed by their childhood experience of sexual, but does not excuse them from legal consequences and that treatment should always be included as necessary for this group of priests.

He was obviously misunderstood both by the press and the public.

He said this;

bossu pedo: “Now don’t tell me that those people are criminally responsible like somebody who chooses to do something like that. I don’t think you can really take the position and say that person deserves to be punished. He was himself damaged.”

Your statement doesn't seem to corroborate his from where I'm standing. He seems to be indicating that other than psychological help they should get a (virtually) free pass as well.


PS; I, personally, might have been more forgiving if this was uttered by someone with honest intentions, not someone so blatantly self-serving; trying to make his organization look good. Tomorrow morning he'll be back demanding homo.sexuals be denied rights, etc etc.

striktlymi: This is from the first link up there:

"MCDA modelling showed that heroin, crack cocaine, and metamfetamine were the most harmful drugs to individuals (part scores 34, 37, and 32, respectively), whereas alcohol, heroin, and crack cocaine were the most harmful to others (46, 21, and 17, respectively). Overall, alcohol was the most harmful drug (overall harm score 72), with heroin (55) and crack cocaine (54) in second and third places."

From the bold, we really can't say that this is victimless...causing harm to others is same as infringing on the rights of others...

The red, no it does not. Someone's gotten a promotion over me or gotten that coveted job hindering my chances at a fatter cheque, he's caused me harm. Has he hindered my rights? Not at all. Woman marries random infidel, family moans and complains. Was she harming them? They'd say yes. Was she infringing on any of their rights? Hell no. Even an irresponsible father need not necessarily be infringing on anyone's rights. Negligent? Yes. In need of medical help? Probably. That does not mean he's infringing on anyone's rights. However, these people would be classified as 'harmful' to friends and family.

As for actual crimes committed by people under the influence and the people who've genuinely had their rights infringed on, these people are victims, yes; of irresponsible users. Blaming the drug in these situations is not in anyway an excuse. The very vast majority of drinkers for instance have their drinks and don't infringe on anyone's rights, so why couldn't they? Many people commit many, many crimes for religious reasons as well yet we do not go about banning religions, do we? Religion (well, most of them) is not a good enough excuse for their behavior, just like drugs. Nobody forced them to do drugs or become religious, etc etc. So again, break the law? Pay the price.

Drugs that cause physical addiction of the non-trivial variety easily though are a different beast. Even if one wanted to stop abusing it would require quite the effort, bordering on impossible for some. In extreme cases even death. For these cases their will is effectively seriously tampered with, it could lead to situations essentially beyond their control in a sense, these shouldn't be legal IMO. Same way cults that befuddle/manipulate members heads in all sorts of manners and/or encourage illegal activity like asking members to say produce human heads etc etc, shouldn't be legal. You don't ban all religion because of that. Heroine would fall into this category, anything milder than alcohol would probably not.

striktlymi: Similarly, if you check the bar graph, you would notice that there is hardly a drug that is not related to crime, though in varying degrees...this can also include crimes meted against some other persons.

Emphasis on the bold, 'can'. For the very vast majority of users of some of these drugs, it does not.

striktlymi: ...I thought the data showed actual crimes??

And those are punished. But you're suggesting we ban them because of potential crimes, not actual crimes.

striktlymi: I am of the opinion that alcohol is permitted because unlike narcotics, one can only get drunk when it is taken in excess...this I don't think is the same with narcotics...like I mentioned before, there is no threshold for narcotics or these 'lesser drugs' before one can get high.

Every drug has a threshold. Every single one. Some low, some high. Alcohol's threshold is not exactly high, at all.(Not to mention it's overall effects when compared to other drugs. ) Comparing is not even easy as alcohol is consumed differently to most other narcotics, but you don't need to drink much before you're (potentially) causing trouble. Just two drinks an hour before a drive is enough to get most people (going by their body weight) arrested, that's how effective it is.

For the bold, alcohol is clearly a narcotic, and a harmful one at that, just a legal one.

striktlymi: I have seen these...

With respect to the OP it is clear that narcotics is not victimless as it can bring harm to others.

If we look at it relatively, we can deduce that alcohol seem to be the more likely to cause harm to others than the other drugs.

It is clear to me they are victimless, very much so. A victim, for me and as far as the op is concerned, would be someone who's had his/her rights infringed on. The only victims here are the ones who are having their own rights, to do what they wish to with their bodies, abused.

Also, punishing potential crimes is the same as punishing thought crimes unless it can be shown that the potential crimes are very likely to become real crimes. This is not so with alcohol, we've managed to control alcohol, so why can we not control these lesser drugs?

ooman: I quite agree with him that pead0philia is a psychological disorder rather than a criminal offense. People who are molested as children have scars of the experience left in them that might change their psychology when they become adults.

General studies truly concluded that females who were treated badly as children tend to treat other children badly when adult and that children who were homosexually molested tend to molest other children when they become adults. The study is not consistent, of course as some molested children got healed of the psychological scars.

I think that the cardinal is right and ped0philia should be treated as a psychological disorder rather than a criminal offense.

I remain an atheist.

The issue is are they criminal offenses?

I, for instance, hold there's no free will, does that mean no one should be arrested or prosecuted? No one should be held accountable for their actions? And the ginormous hypocrisy of a statement like this coming from this bunch. You do know of their history, yes? Quick to demonize homos.exuality for instance yet suddenly pedoph.ilia may not be so bad...

It's disgusting

^^^

That has been shown many times. This I've quoted before, but here's the direct source

http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736%2810%2961462-6/fulltext#article_upsell



On another note, not that it matters much but even heavy hitters, ex-presidents (who need not worry about votes anymore) and such for instance, are 'wtf?!' with the situation as well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Commission_on_Drug_Policy

This article by Jimmy Carter has some hard numbers

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/17/opinion/17carter.html?_r=0

Edit: Their site
http://www.globalcommissionondrugs.org/commission-of-world-leaders-urges-end-to-failed-drug-war-fundamental-reforms-of-global-drug-prohibition-regime/

My main issue remains the rights one, but they have and elaborate on the other decent arguments as well

Yes of course, morality is objective. Pedophi.lia is usually all bad, now it is not so bad when done by abused priests.

Be honest people, this guy reminded you of a few posters, no?

^^^
Never mind the being 'late' thing abeg. There's the real world to see to.

Quick response; but alcohol is clearly worse than many of these drugs and has been managed reasonably. It also 'numbs the senses', abi? I'm not for a ban on alcohol as most users aren't disturbing anyone and the alcohol does indeed add value to their lives. The same should hold for all other similar drugs.

Those that can make you rather physically sick though with withdrawal, or would undoubtedly make one say violent, etc, need to be examined carefully.

onyfrank: I love u ppl inteligence. Let me c hw dis goes.
1. Is it rational for you to risk your life to save a stranger?
2. If rationality and goodness is instilled in people based on evolution, then y do ppl go against d very survival-striving instints we have and behave d opposite? I hav yet to meet anyone who has succefully lived up to their own standard of goodness.
3. Why care about justice?
4. How do u live without hope?
5. Before matter or energy change 4rm one form to another, won't it be acted upon by something outside?
Thanx

Shouldn't be wasting time, but meh. Don't expect me to come back and expatiate much, not now at least. All these things have been addressed on NL anyways, so you could just google away the answers if genuinely curious

1. Depends, even for a total stranger. A terminally ill person could reason 'rationally' he should sacrifice himself for a total stranger, no? Regardless and more importantly, there's no guaranty one would choose the 'rational' option in those situations. In fact many are likely to do the opposite, religious or no, and use their hearts. We're humans, our motivations are determined by emotions else we'd simply be modern day computers.

2. Empathy, not rationality or goodness per se, is a dominant trait written into our genes affecting moral decisions. If
"ppl go against d very survival-striving instints we have and behave d opposite"
That would mean that people "go(ing) against d very survival-striving instints" is part of our genetic make up as well, no? It would mean that sort of behavior is natural as well and written into our genes. It is not "go(ing) against our instints", even if at times it may seem to be going against our survival instinct. 'Survival instinct' isn't the only instinct we posses.

Note, despite all the talk about 'souls', free will, etc, no one can overcome genes. You have a congenital problem? I don't think you can just 'think' or free will it away, you simply have 'faulty' genes. Same thing here, empathy is written into us, into our genes.

As for how does empathy aid the survival of our species (or any species, or life in general for that matter), that is fairly obvious. We're social, it's a collaborative effort, across species even. We live in groups, division of labour, rules etc set around achieving common goals. These rules are more or else moral codes. All other animals do this as well to some degree or the other, they're just doing it (usually) without consciousness.For us in particular, without these rules we'd very likely be much less successful or even extinct, natural selection favored much cooperation heavily in our case. As for cross-species, we're currently the apex predator on this rock, dictating what the rest can and cannot do when we can.

What does empathy have to do with this? Empathy encourages cooperation. It also boosts motivation, aids in our goal setting, etc.

As an example of 'morals' in other species look at these guys for instance. Their lives are probably more interesting and would make for better watching than reality tv drivel like 'keeping up with the kardashians', etc

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kasakela_chimpanzee_community

Also, goodness is subjective. You've probably met a hypocrite or two who've lived up to their own standards as far as they're concerned, or are simply ignorant/unaware of how they are probably abusing their own ideals. As goodness is subjective, so is perfect. There is no such thing as a universally perfect world. But this is another issue.

3. See above. Also, why not?

4. I don't

5. No. More commonly matter is converted to energy without the help of anyone, eg, see the sun. The higgs boson is supposedly related to how energy gains mass but I don't know the details. Either ways that is not a requirement. And if you think so you'd also have to explain how the 'something from outside' came about, creating more problems.

I, personally, believe a truly random, something from nothing phenomenon must exist, but I also hold that that phenomenon is almost certainly not conscious. Consciousness is too complex to spring out from nowhere.